The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from requesting the sequestration of ballots from certain voters in California and Washington. This decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed by several labor unions and civil rights organizations, which argued that the government's actions violated the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause. The ruling could have significant implications for voting rights and election integrity efforts across the country.
The case, Service Employees International Union v. DOJ (Docket No. 26-7303), was filed on October 29, 2026, amid concerns over the federal government’s attempts to investigate and potentially prosecute voters suspected of being non-citizens. The plaintiffs, including the Service Employees International Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, asserted that the DOJ's actions could intimidate voters and undermine the electoral process.
The dispute arose after the DOJ sent letters to election officials in California and Washington, urging them to segregate ballots from individuals the government believed were non-citizens. The letters warned that voting by non-citizens is a federal crime and that officials could face legal consequences if they facilitated such actions. In response, the plaintiffs sought an emergency TRO to prevent the government from making further requests for ballot sequestration or threats of prosecution.
On October 30, 2026, a district court granted the TRO, which would remain in effect until November 16, 2026. The order prohibited the DOJ from enforcing its ballot sequestration requests and mandated that the government inform local officials that its previous demands had been enjoined. Following the district court's decision, the DOJ filed an appeal, seeking a stay of the TRO.
In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit, led by Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea, reinstated the TRO, emphasizing that the government was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claim under the Voting Rights Act faced significant challenges, as the Act does not provide a private right of action against the Executive Branch. The court stated, "The more fundamental problem is that Plaintiffs’ claim would require us to recognize an implied private cause of action against the Executive." This suggests that the court believes the plaintiffs may not have sufficient legal grounds to pursue their case against the DOJ.
The court also expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' Elections Clause claim, which argues that the federal government’s actions interfere with state authority to regulate elections. The Ninth Circuit noted that the government’s request for ballot sequestration did not compel states to act, thus preserving their constitutional authority. The ruling stated, "These are core Executive functions that did not actually disturb the states’ regulation of their own elections." This interpretation could set a precedent for how federal and state powers interact during elections.
The Ninth Circuit's decision to reinstate the TRO has immediate implications for the upcoming federal elections. It prevents the DOJ from enforcing its controversial ballot sequestration requests, which could have affected thousands of voters. The ruling also highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities regarding election integrity and voter access.
Looking ahead, the reinstated TRO will remain in effect until at least November 16, 2026, unless further action is taken by the court. The DOJ has the option to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision, and a related case involving similar issues may also be pending in the courts. As the election approaches, the outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact voter turnout and the integrity of the electoral process.
The implications of this case extend beyond California and Washington, as it raises critical questions about the balance of power between federal and state governments in regulating elections. The Ninth Circuit's ruling may influence similar cases across the country, shaping the future of voting rights and election administration in the United States.
